Личная Жизнь Великих
 

Насколько влияет на наше восприятие творчества великого писателя, композитора, художника то, что мы узнали о его личной жизни? Зачем нам это нужно знать? Кто они, те люди, кто копаясь в личной переписке или базируясь на сплетнях сообщают нам что Чайковский был голубым, Макаренко педерастом, Рэй Чарльз наркоманом, и т.д.
Сейчас в левой прессе маскирующейся под объективную пошла волна полоскания белья писательницы Эйн Рэнд (Алисы Розенбаум). И в 50 лет она спала с 18 летним мальчиком с позволения мужа, и скандалистка была, и курила по 10 пачек в день... Скоро узнаем что она стреляла в месячных щенков из дробовика для собственного удовольствия.
Я знаю что пока пипл хавает, всегда будут находиться "писатели" в поисках нового коня для новой Екатерины, но зачем?

Oleg personal attacks on Ayn Rand are nothing new. I know you've read her stuff, so you know ho threatening her ideas are to the left of any era. You also know how clear her thought process was which makes it hard to argue with her philosophy. If you can't argue with an opposing philosophy the only thing left is to attack their personal life.

To answer the more general question, yes, certain behaviors will change my appreciation of a talanted person. I know this will get a lot of arguments from the group but i have a sliding scale: I don't care about homosexuality, drugs, even extramarital affairs, however finding out that someone was a Nazi, a child -molestor, a rapist, etc. will turn me off their work

i think personal life of the artists helps people understand their art.. i don't understand what's wrong with talking about Ayn Rand lifestyle choices..

why do you view it as an attack? we know that Hemigway was an alcoholic and a womanizer, Emily Dickinson was a recluse, Nabokov liked young girls... writers write about what they know - their life shapes their philosophy and is reflected in their writings... knowing more about the person, helps us gain a deeper understanding of their work.

Problem is, Oleg, none of the things about Ayn Rand (which I thought were common knowledge, btw) are actually bad. (H)(v)
Obviously, she wasn't the most pleasant and agreeable person, but that's a small "sin". The rest are her prerogative.

OK, there is common knowledge (Simon Cowell wears skimpy shirts) and common knowledge (Ayn Rand had taken an 18 y.o. lover while professing her love to her husband). I see publications in Time, New York Magazine & Atlantic that started appearing as soon as Atlas Shrugged became a bestseller in 2009.

Again, what's the big deal??? I think most people expect novelists to be at least somewhat eccentric, and have a skeleton or two in their closet... Isn't it only logical, that as her book gains in popularity, there would be an increased interest in her as a writer and a person?

I think it just says that each person is given a finite quantity of.... hmm... stuff? Meaning, if you are exceptionally good in something, you will be exceptionally bad in something else...

I feel all those personal affairs of writers or whoever are relevant if they carry some kind of major hypocrisy with them. Like those famous televangelists that preached whatever "purity" stuff from the pulpit while doing we-know-what in their private life. Under those circumstances they are totally discredited. But if some writer is a womanizer..... well, they all need their muses:-D

Btw, I meant "common knowledge" in the sense that it's nothing new, has been known for decades. There was a movie with Helen Mirren and Eric Stoltz,The Passion of Ayn Rand,that covered all this, too.
I didn't mean to say that everyone must know this. I am sure most people never even heard of Ayn Rand.
But hey, I had no idea about Simon's shirts! :-P:-D